6 ms·

Before I start: My comment is not about the person, I don't know anything about him, only about one specific section in the linked article. Also, I'm making thi

Before I start: My comment is not about the person, I don't know anything about him, only about one specific section in the linked article. Also, I'm making this a question rather than a strong opinionated statement, because I am in no position to provide the latter. That means I'm ready to stand corrected and post my observation for discussion. I skipped to where I thought I see something about something "sciency", and I found the section when you skip to > Just to clarify here for our readers, obviously, you’re poking holes in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution but you’re saying it only tells the story up to a certain point... I don't understand what he is talking about. I mean, where is that "controversy"? I can only see what's in that article, I don't know what else he may have said or written elsewhere. I only took biology classes on edX the last few years (the most important one was [0]), and nothing he says in that section is "controversial". Genetic drift and small populations are part of the teaching, if you go to edX's course "Nature, in Code: Biology in JavaScript" [1] you even get to simulate just that numerically, population bottlenecks, genetic drift, and more. I recognize everything he said from the courses I took, or from lecture videos on Youtube (by biologists and geneticists, specifically, e.g. this one: [2] - very funny guy too). Going only by what I see in that article, in that section, I can only assume he is making a mistake in declaring some imagined and made-up "controversy" where none exists. What am I missing? To me his statements are like somebody trying to defend their "controversial" point of view that the earth is on a course around the sun, making very defensive statements because they think, for whatever reason, they are saying something incredibly controversial. [0] https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-biology-secret-life-mitx-7-00x-7 https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-biology-secret-life-... [1] https://www.edx.org/course/nature-code-biology-javascript-epflx-nic1-0x https://www.edx.org/course/nature-code-biology-javascript-ep... [2] https://www.gresham.ac.uk/professors-and-speakers/professor-steve-jones/ https://www.gresham.ac.uk/professors-and-speakers/professor-...

pokemongoaway 8y ago
So much controversy in theories of evolution. All thinkers can benefit from this feeling that "we're over these solved problems." Get to the root of the problems by looking at the various paradigms before one went mainstream and trampled the rest - and stop trying to jump to the same conclusions the mainstream did.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Given that I was at least somewhat specific, I have no idea what you are trying to convey, and/or what your point is, unfortunately...? Yeah, I noticed that the article isn't (specific) either.
  - pokemongoaway 8y ago
    Do a review of literature mr silver platter.
mnl 8y ago
He's been a very accomplished theoretical physicist* (a mathematician actually) and an inquisitive mind. He also has met literally everybody, he's living History of 20th century Physics and more. You just can't ignore this kind of figures if you're interested in Science. When Freeman talks I always listen, even when he's wrong he still has a point: don't underestimate him, even at 94. (*We're still using quite a bit of his QFT formalism... laid down almost 70 years ago now.)
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Let me quote from my own very first paragraph: > My comment is not about the person... only about one specific section in the linked article. I don't see why anything you say should influence my opinion about what I wrote, when that is all I comment on? Do all his accomplishments mean he can say whatever he wants and I can't say anything? I admit I don't understand your response, given that I already limited the scope of my comment myself right from the start.
  - mnl 8y ago
    It's just strange for me reading something like "I don't know anything about Dyson, but -proceeds to talk about Science-". I think you should know him, he's been around. Science is made by people, it's a good idea to get to know who they are and where they're coming from before judging what they're trying to say. Most of the outsiders of a field spout nonsense, but there are really smart people out there as well. Yeah, in my book Freeman Dyson can say whatever he wants, he's earned it. Of course I'm not saying he's right, but I'll double check. But he's a physicist!... well, at some point Biology has to be Physics, what else could it be?
    - mistermann 8y ago
      I think OP's question was more along the lines of, if there is a controversy, it doesn't seemed to be contained within the article....so, is there actually a legitimate controversy on the topic and might it be found elsewhere? I don't think he could have possibly gone further out of his way to project politeness.
p1esk 8y ago
To me, the main controversy is that evolution seems to work too well. Almost as if some "intelligent designer" guided it.
- heurist 8y ago
  No, that's just how existence works. Systems that perpetuate themselves are more likely to continue existing. Systems that don't perpetuate themselves stop existing. No intelligence required.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    Perpetuate themselves by making random changes? Or the changes are not quite random? Software simulations of the former do not lead to much intelligence, and the latter hints at some higher order. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so this is just a layman's pondering...
    - ithkuil 8y ago
      Higher order doesn't imply design by an intelligent agent. Higher order can be an emergent property of a system under the pressure of raw, inanimated, constraints.
      - p1esk 8y ago
        That's hand-waving. Again, how does it "emerge"? Through random mutations? Perhaps so, but it is statistically highly unlikely. Clearly there's a significant gap in our understanding of evolution, because otherwise we would have modeled it by now. Theory of evolution is like theory of how brain works: incomplete.
        ithkuil 8y ago
        I didn't intend to start an argument in favour of proving or disproving one point or the other. Just wanted to mention that the existence of an "higher order" is not a proof in itself in the existence of a purposeful creator of that higher order. Consider for example the game of Go board game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)). It has an extremely small set of rules, yet it produces astounding patterns in the way games develop. The Go board game obviously has a creator; humans invented it. But that doesn't mean that whover thought up the rules of Go knew upfront the intricate complexity that we explored throughout the centuries (by playing games). We gain no further insight in the higher order that emerges by following the rules of Go by knowing the precise circumstances that led to its creation. When thinking about the universe and life itself, I think this aspect is more important than the unknowable answer about whether there was a creator or not: would knowing the creator necessarily explain most of the complex behaviour we see?
heurist 8y ago
Neutral theory is controversial in that it is unproven (or was when I last read about it 6 years ago). It is still a legitimate topic of research.

pokemongoaway 8y ago

So much controversy in theories of evolution. All thinkers can benefit from this feeling that "we're over these solved problems." Get to the root of the problems by looking at the various paradigms before one went mainstream and trampled the rest - and stop trying to jump to the same conclusions the mainstream did.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Given that I was at least somewhat specific, I have no idea what you are trying to convey, and/or what your point is, unfortunately...? Yeah, I noticed that the article isn't (specific) either.
- pokemongoaway 8y ago
  Do a review of literature mr silver platter.

mnl 8y ago

He's been a very accomplished theoretical physicist* (a mathematician actually) and an inquisitive mind. He also has met literally everybody, he's living History of 20th century Physics and more. You just can't ignore this kind of figures if you're interested in Science. When Freeman talks I always listen, even when he's wrong he still has a point: don't underestimate him, even at 94. (*We're still using quite a bit of his QFT formalism... laid down almost 70 years ago now.)

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Let me quote from my own very first paragraph: > My comment is not about the person... only about one specific section in the linked article. I don't see why anything you say should influence my opinion about what I wrote, when that is all I comment on? Do all his accomplishments mean he can say whatever he wants and I can't say anything? I admit I don't understand your response, given that I already limited the scope of my comment myself right from the start.
- mnl 8y ago
  It's just strange for me reading something like "I don't know anything about Dyson, but -proceeds to talk about Science-". I think you should know him, he's been around. Science is made by people, it's a good idea to get to know who they are and where they're coming from before judging what they're trying to say. Most of the outsiders of a field spout nonsense, but there are really smart people out there as well. Yeah, in my book Freeman Dyson can say whatever he wants, he's earned it. Of course I'm not saying he's right, but I'll double check. But he's a physicist!... well, at some point Biology has to be Physics, what else could it be?
  - mistermann 8y ago
    I think OP's question was more along the lines of, if there is a controversy, it doesn't seemed to be contained within the article....so, is there actually a legitimate controversy on the topic and might it be found elsewhere? I don't think he could have possibly gone further out of his way to project politeness.

p1esk 8y ago

To me, the main controversy is that evolution seems to work too well. Almost as if some "intelligent designer" guided it.

heurist 8y ago
No, that's just how existence works. Systems that perpetuate themselves are more likely to continue existing. Systems that don't perpetuate themselves stop existing. No intelligence required.
- p1esk 8y ago
  Perpetuate themselves by making random changes? Or the changes are not quite random? Software simulations of the former do not lead to much intelligence, and the latter hints at some higher order. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so this is just a layman's pondering...
  - ithkuil 8y ago
    Higher order doesn't imply design by an intelligent agent. Higher order can be an emergent property of a system under the pressure of raw, inanimated, constraints.
    - p1esk 8y ago
      That's hand-waving. Again, how does it "emerge"? Through random mutations? Perhaps so, but it is statistically highly unlikely. Clearly there's a significant gap in our understanding of evolution, because otherwise we would have modeled it by now. Theory of evolution is like theory of how brain works: incomplete.
      - ithkuil 8y ago
        I didn't intend to start an argument in favour of proving or disproving one point or the other. Just wanted to mention that the existence of an "higher order" is not a proof in itself in the existence of a purposeful creator of that higher order. Consider for example the game of Go board game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)). It has an extremely small set of rules, yet it produces astounding patterns in the way games develop. The Go board game obviously has a creator; humans invented it. But that doesn't mean that whover thought up the rules of Go knew upfront the intricate complexity that we explored throughout the centuries (by playing games). We gain no further insight in the higher order that emerges by following the rules of Go by knowing the precise circumstances that led to its creation. When thinking about the universe and life itself, I think this aspect is more important than the unknowable answer about whether there was a creator or not: would knowing the creator necessarily explain most of the complex behaviour we see?

heurist 8y ago

Neutral theory is controversial in that it is unproven (or was when I last read about it 6 years ago). It is still a legitimate topic of research.