13 ms·

>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 evol

>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
        Look at you trying to save face, even willing to insult my intelligence to do so. In fact, nothing is complicated here. You just didnt know the meaning of "just-so" stories and refus to accept that you were wrong about that, even after you typed it out yourself. The funny thing is in the irony when you typed that point out yourself, it still managed to go over your head that: the phrase was misused, and that fact was my only point I was trying to make here. This would make anyone question your own intelligence, not other's! Have a good day. I'm not going to keep repeating myself or continue to interact with someone who has bad faith.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Look at you trying to save face, even willing to insult my intelligence to do so. In fact, nothing is complicated here. You just didnt know the meaning of "just-so" stories and refus to accept that you were wrong about that Whoa, no. Now you really sound like the typical anti-evolutionist troller. Go and listen to some of Bret Weinstein's lectures or YouTube videos. "just so stories" in an evolutionary biology context are precisely failed theories in evolutionary biology, and they can be Darwinian just as they can be Lamarckian or Rostaferian. the phrase was misused Basically, you were misapplying the phrase as used in a different context in the evolutionary biology context, which you yourself evoked by mentioning Lamarckianism. Have a good day. I'm not going to keep repeating myself or continue to interact with someone who has bad faith. I'm confident that 3rd party readers can tell the difference. I suspect you can correlate that with the sheer number of other people trying to disabuse you of the same notion.

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
        Look at you trying to save face, even willing to insult my intelligence to do so. In fact, nothing is complicated here. You just didnt know the meaning of "just-so" stories and refus to accept that you were wrong about that, even after you typed it out yourself. The funny thing is in the irony when you typed that point out yourself, it still managed to go over your head that: the phrase was misused, and that fact was my only point I was trying to make here. This would make anyone question your own intelligence, not other's! Have a good day. I'm not going to keep repeating myself or continue to interact with someone who has bad faith.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Look at you trying to save face, even willing to insult my intelligence to do so. In fact, nothing is complicated here. You just didnt know the meaning of "just-so" stories and refus to accept that you were wrong about that Whoa, no. Now you really sound like the typical anti-evolutionist troller. Go and listen to some of Bret Weinstein's lectures or YouTube videos. "just so stories" in an evolutionary biology context are precisely failed theories in evolutionary biology, and they can be Darwinian just as they can be Lamarckian or Rostaferian. the phrase was misused Basically, you were misapplying the phrase as used in a different context in the evolutionary biology context, which you yourself evoked by mentioning Lamarckianism. Have a good day. I'm not going to keep repeating myself or continue to interact with someone who has bad faith. I'm confident that 3rd party readers can tell the difference. I suspect you can correlate that with the sheer number of other people trying to disabuse you of the same notion.