5 ms·

I don’t think he was denying evolution. He was suggesting that maybe slow, random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. I’m no

by brap 3y ago

I don’t think he was denying evolution. He was suggesting that maybe slow, random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”. Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. maybe. What is it? > In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc. Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns. Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there. But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest. > maybe. what is it? Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    > Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please. > In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else? > just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest. Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself. I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. (edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes "and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
    - jibal 3y ago
      "otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself" That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
    - EGreg 3y ago
      >> Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries? > Yes The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”. The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject. I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something. > I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions. “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence. What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”. My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear? I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic. But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.

by brap 3y ago

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

> random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. maybe. What is it? > In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.

EGreg 3y ago
Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc. Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns. Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there. But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest. > maybe. what is it? Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please. > In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else? > just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest. Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself. I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. (edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes "and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
  - jibal 3y ago
    "otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself" That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    >> Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries? > Yes The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”. The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject. I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something. > I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions. “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence. What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”. My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear? I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic. But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.