In the latest post, Baraminology and Pseudoscience, Dr. Mc made some, what I will call, in-your-face comments; direct and brutally honest (IMHO):
"The current classification structure of genus (meaning general) and species (meaning specific) is bankrupt.I don’t think that’s too strong a statement, since after hundreds of years of use a clear definition of what a "species" is has not emerged. Take for instance the coyote ( Canis latrans), the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and the black backed jackal (Canis mesomelas). They are classified as three different species in the genus Canis, yet domesticated dogs of any description are all considered to be the same species (Canis familiaris). The term virtually has no meaning. So why haven’t scientists abandoned this antiquated classification system, developed by an 18th century creationist, in favor of a more precise one? Because fuzzy boundaries serve evolution theory well. If clear boundaries are discovered between classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction! In order to keep baraminology as pseudoscience, we must live with pseudospecies."
I would encourage you to make any comments you feel are necessary over at AcademicFreedomBlog. I am too busy at work to follow the comments at EE (with the exception of this one).
I left this comment there; it is currently in moderation.
ReplyDelete---
Baloney.
Taxonomy is imperfect because it is an attempt by humans to impose their notions of perfection on the natural world, which, despite our fervent wishes, rarely conforms to such notions.
Species boundaries are indistinct because of natural and OBVIOUS variations in the characters of the organisms that we would like to bundle up and store in the bins we call "species".
Are you denying the existence of this variation?
Do you have evidence for clear and unchanging boundaries between all the taxa that we call "species"?
Do you have evidence for your conspiracy theory (Because fuzzy boundaries serve evolution theory well. If clear boundaries are discovered between classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction! In order to keep baraminology as pseudoscience, we must live with pseudospecies.)?
Or is just another instance of creationists wishing that the natural world corresponded more perfectly with the stories that exist inside their heads?
---
Good comment Dave. Thanks for keeping it clean.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Dave, and I wonder what you think is evenhanded and level-headed about Dr. Mc's conspiracy theorizing as well.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I have to say that I find this blog's explicit mission to appear intellectually dishonest. I'm not a biologist, but I have made a steady effort to understand biology, a process that I continue to work on. You seem to be posing questions, and falling for pseudo-explanations or pseudo-controversies, without having opened the textbook for that which you want to question.
Tony, ouch, you wound me, for all of 2 seconds.
ReplyDeleteI think EE has posed relevant questions and the discussions here have been fascinating to follow.
Since it is obvious you don't think much of this post, and taking into account I've tried to make more of a concerted effort to include engineering topics in the past two months, please enlighten me as to the particular "pseudo-explanation/controversy" I have "fallen for" since September?
BTW, good to see you back here again.
JJS,
ReplyDeleteYour blog's banner says that you're looking at the Evolution/ID debate from an engineer's perspective. You say that you're fascinated by true scientific debate.
But you choose to promote a site that declares, "If clear boundaries are discovered between classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction!" What? The first sentence doesn't make any sense. The second one is a paranoid fantasy, a scandalous assertion offered without evidence.
Have you read the Origin of Species? The Blind Watchmaker? The Selfish Gene? The Agile Gene? The Extended Phenotoype? The Blank Slate? Do you have any close friends or relatives who work in biology, clinical psychology, or a hard biological science? Because I think that these exposures would make you immune to calling attention to claims like the one you singled out as plausible.