4 ms·

But this is actually not a just-so story. It's a Darwinian hypothesis. OP needs to gather evidence if they want to prove their theory. Said another way: A sing

But this is actually not a just-so story. It's a Darwinian hypothesis. OP needs to gather evidence if they want to prove their theory. Said another way: A single Lamarckian example of evolution has yet to be proven, so they can perhaps be dismissed with a degree of confidence. OP's hypothesis is not Lamarckian.

stcredzero 8y ago
A Darwinian just-so story may well be worse than a Lamarckian one. The latter might be immediately falsifiable while the former might be "not even wrong." (Ugh. I just did a search for "Just So stories," only to discover that the anti-evolutionists have latched onto that term!)
- wallace_f 8y ago
  >I just did a search for "Just So stories," only to discover that the anti-evolutionists have latched onto that term! Well, that is my point. They are not evolutionary theories. Despite this being ultra downvoted, my pointing out the use of the term "just-so stories" is incorrect here seems to clearly be something you are even realizing while in the same breath disagreeing.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    You seem painfully unaware that separating "just so stories" from worthy, testable hypotheses is actually a significant part of the process of coming up with a theory in evolutionary biology.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      My argument is not even about the process of teasing out a testable hypothesis. What I said is that the phrase, "just-so stories" is misused here. You even discovered that yourself when you did a Google search on this phrase, as is evident from your last post. And your subsequently combative, insulting attitude in response to this development reflects poorly on your character.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        What I said is that the phrase, "just-so stories" is misused here. You even discovered that yourself when you did a Google search on this phrase, as is evident from your last post. My Google discovery has almost no bearing on the point I and everyone else trying to clue you in on this thread was making. So your response is actually a datapoint against you here.
        wallace_f 8y ago
        Your responses come across not as explanatory or cooperative, but as having a combative and unproductive attitude Anyways, whether you like to admit it or not, your Google discovery was 100% literally what my argument here is. I have no ability to get you to change your tone or reevaluate this thread, even after you typed out the discovery yourself, showing that neither did you read my argument, let alone try to understand it. What I said was exactly what your Google discovery was. There's not really anything else to say here. My argument was plain and simple. Just-so stories are Lamarckian theories that are not substantiated by evolutionary biology. Since I'm already repeating myself, I'm going to stop responding now. But I'm glad at least you learned something: exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Your responses come across not as explanatory or cooperative, but as having a combative and unproductive attitude Here's the thing. Your point seems to be that a "Just so story" is necessarily Lamarckian. In about a half dozen comments, people have been trying to disabuse you of this notion. Something that structurally and thematically resembles a "Just so story" could be written in a Rudyard Kipling Christian framework, a Jedi framework, or a Carl Sagan Cosmos framework. None of that matters. Just-so stories are Lamarckian theories that are not substantiated by evolutionary biology. So your theory is that, "Just-so stories are Lamarckian theories that are not substantiated by evolutionary biology." How could this theory be falsified? One way a careful scientist would try, would be to compose a just-so story entirely with Darwinian natural selection as a framework. Another way, would be to formulate a theory in terms of Darwinian evolutionary biology which no one knows how to falsify. There are countless examples of the above formulated by researchers in evolutionary biology all the time. They are as countless as failed ideas, because that is pretty much what they are. For your point to stand, it has to deny the existence of the above. But I'm glad at least you learned something: exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. Learning that makes me question whether you understand Darwinian evolution in the first place.
inimino 8y ago
A Darwinian just-so story is still a just-so story.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  What I was trying to say is that just-so stories are not consistent with modern evolutionary biology. They are in fact Lamarckian. They are by definition, not Darwinian. The phrase here is not being used correctly in this thread.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    What I was trying to say is that just-so stories are not consistent with modern evolutionary biology. They are in fact Lamarckian. Now you're dissecting exactly what your position is, which is to your credit. However, you're also exposing the exact nature of your misconception quite starkly as well. "Just-so stories," as used by the evolutionary biology community, can indeed be written entirely in an Darwinian evolutionary framework. All you have to do is to craft an evolutionary theory which is not currently falsifiable. Here's one. An explanation for why human babies have an unconscious proclivity for sticking things in their mouths. Infant mortality in non-technological human societies is rather high. This gives them an optimal emergent function as unwitting food tasters for their family and society. Infants represent a good cost/benefit as food tasters, since they contain almost no cultural investment in learning and knowledge, and represent a relatively small group investment in food and other resources given to them in their short lives, so if they should die, there are far fewer resources lost. This theory is entirely Darwinian. It's a behavioral trait which can plausibly be passed down to descendants, and the mechanism for the increase of this trait is through the reproductive advantage which accrues to individuals living in groups which can discover edible foods and poisons for the least cost. (Now, I can only imagine that you're going to try and spin what I've just said by imputing intention to entities in the theory, or some misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanisms of altruism. The persistence with which you don't understand that which is told to you resembles that of anti-evolutionists.)
Semiapies 8y ago
OP's hypothesis isn't even falsifiable. It's just an idea.

stcredzero 8y ago

A Darwinian just-so story may well be worse than a Lamarckian one. The latter might be immediately falsifiable while the former might be "not even wrong." (Ugh. I just did a search for "Just So stories," only to discover that the anti-evolutionists have latched onto that term!)

wallace_f 8y ago
>I just did a search for "Just So stories," only to discover that the anti-evolutionists have latched onto that term! Well, that is my point. They are not evolutionary theories. Despite this being ultra downvoted, my pointing out the use of the term "just-so stories" is incorrect here seems to clearly be something you are even realizing while in the same breath disagreeing.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  You seem painfully unaware that separating "just so stories" from worthy, testable hypotheses is actually a significant part of the process of coming up with a theory in evolutionary biology.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    My argument is not even about the process of teasing out a testable hypothesis. What I said is that the phrase, "just-so stories" is misused here. You even discovered that yourself when you did a Google search on this phrase, as is evident from your last post. And your subsequently combative, insulting attitude in response to this development reflects poorly on your character.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      What I said is that the phrase, "just-so stories" is misused here. You even discovered that yourself when you did a Google search on this phrase, as is evident from your last post. My Google discovery has almost no bearing on the point I and everyone else trying to clue you in on this thread was making. So your response is actually a datapoint against you here.
      - wallace_f 8y ago
        Your responses come across not as explanatory or cooperative, but as having a combative and unproductive attitude Anyways, whether you like to admit it or not, your Google discovery was 100% literally what my argument here is. I have no ability to get you to change your tone or reevaluate this thread, even after you typed out the discovery yourself, showing that neither did you read my argument, let alone try to understand it. What I said was exactly what your Google discovery was. There's not really anything else to say here. My argument was plain and simple. Just-so stories are Lamarckian theories that are not substantiated by evolutionary biology. Since I'm already repeating myself, I'm going to stop responding now. But I'm glad at least you learned something: exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Your responses come across not as explanatory or cooperative, but as having a combative and unproductive attitude Here's the thing. Your point seems to be that a "Just so story" is necessarily Lamarckian. In about a half dozen comments, people have been trying to disabuse you of this notion. Something that structurally and thematically resembles a "Just so story" could be written in a Rudyard Kipling Christian framework, a Jedi framework, or a Carl Sagan Cosmos framework. None of that matters. Just-so stories are Lamarckian theories that are not substantiated by evolutionary biology. So your theory is that, "Just-so stories are Lamarckian theories that are not substantiated by evolutionary biology." How could this theory be falsified? One way a careful scientist would try, would be to compose a just-so story entirely with Darwinian natural selection as a framework. Another way, would be to formulate a theory in terms of Darwinian evolutionary biology which no one knows how to falsify. There are countless examples of the above formulated by researchers in evolutionary biology all the time. They are as countless as failed ideas, because that is pretty much what they are. For your point to stand, it has to deny the existence of the above. But I'm glad at least you learned something: exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. Learning that makes me question whether you understand Darwinian evolution in the first place.

inimino 8y ago

A Darwinian just-so story is still a just-so story.

wallace_f 8y ago
What I was trying to say is that just-so stories are not consistent with modern evolutionary biology. They are in fact Lamarckian. They are by definition, not Darwinian. The phrase here is not being used correctly in this thread.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  What I was trying to say is that just-so stories are not consistent with modern evolutionary biology. They are in fact Lamarckian. Now you're dissecting exactly what your position is, which is to your credit. However, you're also exposing the exact nature of your misconception quite starkly as well. "Just-so stories," as used by the evolutionary biology community, can indeed be written entirely in an Darwinian evolutionary framework. All you have to do is to craft an evolutionary theory which is not currently falsifiable. Here's one. An explanation for why human babies have an unconscious proclivity for sticking things in their mouths. Infant mortality in non-technological human societies is rather high. This gives them an optimal emergent function as unwitting food tasters for their family and society. Infants represent a good cost/benefit as food tasters, since they contain almost no cultural investment in learning and knowledge, and represent a relatively small group investment in food and other resources given to them in their short lives, so if they should die, there are far fewer resources lost. This theory is entirely Darwinian. It's a behavioral trait which can plausibly be passed down to descendants, and the mechanism for the increase of this trait is through the reproductive advantage which accrues to individuals living in groups which can discover edible foods and poisons for the least cost. (Now, I can only imagine that you're going to try and spin what I've just said by imputing intention to entities in the theory, or some misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanisms of altruism. The persistence with which you don't understand that which is told to you resembles that of anti-evolutionists.)

Semiapies 8y ago

OP's hypothesis isn't even falsifiable. It's just an idea.