4 ms·

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

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.
        wallace_f 8y ago

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.
        wallace_f 8y ago