Religion

[axocanth]

I see microevolution as compatible with the Bible and totally observable, but macroevolution I see as Berlinski himself said in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary, a failed metaphysical experiment.

I've never heard Berlinski explicitly deny that macroevolution occurs. Have you? What he does do frequently is remind us all that it's the result of an inferential chain, massively removed from what can be directly observed.

Our resident Red Guards will routinely tell you that macroevolution is nothing but microevolution writ large; it's just "more of the same" extrapolated over longer time scales.

Our resident Red Guards really need to stop tuning in to only the Ministry of Propaganda broadcasts. There are plenty of distinguished scientists who take a very different stance on this.

Indeed, the whole idea that biological change -- in all its dizzying diversity and complexity -- can be pretty much captured in a glib one-liner (survival of the fittest) is almost breathtaking in its preposterousness.

 

[axocanth]

I see microevolution as compatible with the Bible and totally observable, but macroevolution I see as Berlinski himself said in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary, a failed metaphysical experiment.

I'll watch it later. Thanks for sharing the link.

 

[Revelation In Space]

I've never heard Berlinski explicitly deny that macroevolution occurs. Have you?

It's been some time since I've listened to him, I can't recall. I don't think you can listen to him in a video like the first one I posted and think it possible that he doesn't.

What he does do frequently is remind us all that it's the result of an inferential chain, massively removed from what can be directly observed.

Well, he certainly does that.

Our resident Red Guards will routinely tell you that macroevolution is nothing but microevolution writ large; it's just "more of the same" extrapolated over longer time scales.

Requiring faith which they dismiss as stupidity. They have evidence on their side. Ape skulls that look similar to human skulls, shards of pelvis and some teeth.

Our resident Red Guards really need to stop tuning in to only the Ministry of Propaganda broadcasts. There are plenty of distinguished scientists who take a very different stance on this.

I still remember the illustrations of brutish cave men gathered around the campfire and big lizard creatures in grade school. That and stories of Paul Revere riding gallantly through town shouting "The British are coming!" And visits to the planetarium.

Indeed, the whole idea that biological change -- in all its dizzying diversity and complexity -- can be pretty much captured in a glib one-liner (survival of the fittest) is almost breathtaking in its preposterousness.

They say the truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[axocanth]

Our resident Red Guards will routinely tell you that macroevolution is nothing but microevolution writ large; it's just "more of the same" extrapolated over longer time scales.

Requiring faith which they dismiss as stupidity. They have evidence on their side. Ape skulls that look similar to human skulls, shards of pelvis and some teeth.

It's interesting that as I scan through older threads on the site I see the same mantra repeated over and over, "Macro- is nothing but lots of micro-evolution", including from those members who present themselves as being competent to speak on such matters.

There are, of course, plenty of scientists who say as much -- especially the ones who make the most noise (Dawkins et al) -- and it's standard fare from the Youtube gods who "educate" the public on science (Professor Dave, Forrest Valkai, and other deities).

But there are also plenty of distinguished scientists who say the opposite: macro- does not reduce to micro. It's not just "more of the same".

At the grass roots level of our own Red Guards, the most plausible explanation is -- no prizes for guessing -- ignorance. They've simply accepted -- obediently and unquestioningly, as always -- the Ministry of Propaganda party line on this, and never bothered to do any extra-MOP reading of their own.

At the higher levels, though, an explanation of ignorance appears far less plausible. It's hard not to suspect that the "top brass" are deliberately presenting a united front where no united front exists.

It's something Stephen Jay Gould -- an "anti-reductionist" -- complains about in a fascinating final section of his 2007 "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- the deliberate distortion of PE views.

Cause for concern? Don't be silly! Our own high priests would never deceive us!

 

[Revelation In Space]

1. What is "The Theory of Evolution"?

Ask ten different scientists and you're liable to get ten different answers. Members here themselves, for example, routinely rehash the Ministry of Propaganda slogan "There is the fact of evolution and then there is the theory of evolution. The two are different. The latter is that which explains the former." Pinball himself observes the same distinction (in the "ID Redux" thread). Is it unusual for scientists themselves to challenge "The Theory"?

If they do, they are just asking for trouble. Everyone knows this but very few would admit it.

2. Fossil record: Is it, or is it not the case that scientists themselves draw wildly divergent conclusions from the fossil record -- both in terms of the pattern (tempo or mode), and the unobservable processes and mechanisms supposedly responsible for these patterns? If so, why is it unreasonable to suggest that the fossil record is "mystifying"? Scientists themselves do not agree on what sense to make of it.

The ideologue doesn't look for refutation they look for confirmation. If the fossils appear in the wrong period, they simply move them to the "right period."

3. re anecdotes. In Pinball's view, what do all episodes of so-called natural selection have in common? Is there a common force responsible in all cases, for example, analogous to a Newtonian gravitational force which explains all its instances? If not, what is the commonality? I asked him before (same thread); he did not understand the question. If there is nothing substantive linking all cases of natural selection, much as there is nothing substantive linking all cases of human battle, why is the word "anecdote" unreasonable?

I have no idea.

4. Is it, or is it not the case that leaders in the field (Gould, Lewontin) have criticized their peers for concocting "Just So" stories, which might reasonably be described as "anecdotes"?

5. How does Pinball suggest we transcend the anecdotal and confirm putative episodes of natural selection in the distant past?

While you're at it . . .

Does Pinball know the difference between a conceptual and an empirical question? Is the possible vacuity of natural selection theory, say, an empirical or a conceptual question? Can Pinball name a discipline which devotes itself to the examination of conceptual questions? (clue: it's not science).

Maybe if he ignores you, you will go away?

 

[axocanth]

Maybe if he ignores you, you will go away?

I've been told I can brighten up a room . . . just by leaving it.

 

[Revelation In Space]

I've been told I can brighten up a room . . . just by leaving it.