tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post4261786865914443544..comments2023-11-03T06:35:51.218-06:00Comments on Evolution Engineered: The Altenberg Sixteen and The EESJJS P.Eng.http://www.blogger.com/profile/05029579563816207022noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-78108859065935976552008-07-22T23:32:00.000-06:002008-07-22T23:32:00.000-06:00"Take away NS and all you are left with is one big..."<EM>Take away NS and all you are left with is one big game of Yahtzee. IOW, evolution without the contingency of NS becomes a framework of chance. If this is true, then I think it's obvious that the new synthesis will be weaker than the one it replaces. What would you prefer: pure chance or chance coupled with contingency?</EM><BR/><BR/>I am totally lost, dazed, and confused now. Evolution without an environmental filter....there are actually people who believe that?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the tips...I have to look into this more...but my head is spinning.William Wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808990274355464303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-52608199162217985622008-07-16T12:42:00.000-06:002008-07-16T12:42:00.000-06:00For more evidence (as if it was needed) that Denys...For more evidence (as if it was needed) that Denyse is generally clueless in regards to science and how it is done, you might want to take a peek at this comment thread at <A HREF="http://telicthoughts.com/the-woodstock-of-evolution/#comment-197710" REL="nofollow">Telic Thoughts</A>. Denyse is, of course, immediately corrected by an actual practicing scientist, David Heddle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-89941008937893303332008-07-16T02:14:00.000-06:002008-07-16T02:14:00.000-06:00It would have helped your post had you bothered to...It would have helped your post had you bothered to look at Massimo's own blog, where he has been posting notes from the conference daily. It's <A HREF="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Mazur is merely posturing, making noise, and judging what I've read of her stuff online, by and large she doesn't know what she's talking about. When she writes stuff like <BR/><BR/><I>But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. ...</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.</I><BR/><BR/>she's blowing pure smoke. I know a bunch of evolutionary biologists, I teach evolutionary modeling in a biology department, and no professional that I know thinks that. She's clearly a "journalist" of the Denyse O'Leary school of breathless hype.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-19969348535751839422008-07-15T15:53:00.000-06:002008-07-15T15:53:00.000-06:00In case it wasn't obvious, my last comment was dir...In case it wasn't obvious, my last comment was directed at JJS.<BR/><BR/>Mazur's comment is equivalent to someone saying that the engineering community has known for some time that fatigue has nothing to do with structural failures.Freelurkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15990397816646766987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-53017401963557657692008-07-15T15:38:00.000-06:002008-07-15T15:38:00.000-06:00Suzan Mazur wrote: But the scientific community ha...Suzan Mazur wrote: <BR/><I>But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>That's absurd. It's outright crankery. Surely you see that.Freelurkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15990397816646766987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-8860644076286692272008-07-15T09:26:00.000-06:002008-07-15T09:26:00.000-06:00Snake oil dose #1 - you wrote First, I can see why...Snake oil dose #1 - you wrote <I>First, I can see why the science blogs* are bristling at either setting aside or demoting natural selection. Take away NS and all you are left with is one big game of Yahtzee.</I><BR/><BR/>Where's the bristling, other than at Mazur's cluelessness about science? Nobody (except Mazur and you and other creationists) says that NS is being "taken away". Read further down the page in that Massimo Pigliucci post (written by someone who will actually be at the Altenberg meeting). <B>The basic idea is that there have been some interesting empirical discoveries, as well as the articulation of some new concepts, subsequently to the Modern Synthesis, that one needs to explicitly integrate with the standard ideas about natural selection, common descent, population genetics and statistical genetics (nowadays known as evolutionary quantitative genetics).</B><BR/><BR/>"Integrate" does not mean eliminate...<BR/><BR/>Snake oil dose #2 - you wrote "<I>So is this a case of tip-toeing to "appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants"</I>. Even though you followed it with a question mark, and hinted that Mazur might be exaggerating, this sort of conspiracy theory mentality doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the absence of evidence. Do you have evidence of a "Darwin industry"? Do you have evidence that scientists stonewall or ignore evidence to protect their "foundation grants"? If so, let's hear it. If not, please stop the insinuations that this might be the case. I'm a biological scientist, and I find this suggestion to be frankly insulting.<BR/><BR/>As for Pigliucci's views re Mazur's sensationalizing, read <A HREF="http://www.scientificblogging.com/genomicron/blog/the_woodstock_of_evolutionary_biology_and_eye_rolling" REL="nofollow">this summary</A> of a recent article in <I>Science</I>, particularly this paragraph:<BR/><BR/><B>That hyperbole has reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community, putting Pigliucci and the 15 other participants at the forefront of a debate over whether ideas about evolution need updating. The mere mention of the "Altenberg 16," as Mazur dubbed the group, causes some evolutionary biologists to roll their eyes. It's a joke, says Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago in Illinois. "I don't think there's anything that needs fixing." Mazur's attention, Pigliucci admits, "frankly caused me embarrassment."</B><BR/><BR/>And yes, I did get in a jab at ID, and certain journalists, because those journalists promote ID and yet don't seem to understand that ID is not science. According to its founder, Phillip Johnson, it's not yet a theory that has any experimental underpinning. This is in contrast to evolutionary theory, which is a vibrant, bubbling, and exciting explanatory framework for understanding life's diversity. So when such a journalist or two decides, based on demonstrable MISunderstanding of science, to paint a vibrant and exciting time in the history of that science as possibly the start of its demise, it helps to contrast that with the already-dead state of ID.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-78619225207662103722008-07-15T08:49:00.000-06:002008-07-15T08:49:00.000-06:00dave, exactly how did I "swallow a lot of snake oi...dave, exactly how did I "swallow a lot of snake oil"? Granted, I was previously interested in the A-16 summit and may have placed too much expectations from it. My bad. However, based on Mazur's latest piece, that has changed. I think it is obvious from Mazur's writing that her tone is harsh and (perhaps) overly critical of the existing synthesis and she seems to be using the A-16 to promote this. As I commented elsewhere, if her e-book does not properly reflect the views of these sixteen scientists, they need to publicly distance themselves from her, the sooner the better.<BR/><BR/>I also made sure to present the other side by posting Massimo Pigliucci's views. I note that in that post he did not distance himself from Suzan Mazur.<BR/><BR/>I presented a balanced view which allowed for the possiblity that Mazur was sensationalising, I put forward two legitimate points, and I did not mention ID once. Based on this post alone, where did I "swallow a lot of snake oil"?<BR/><BR/>Nice little jab at ID. I see you couldn't resist, eh? <BR/><BR/>Also, please get rid of the name calling (it's O'Leary or Grandma if you will); it doesn't become you. I respect your views and points because you generally don't revert to name calling. I like to think of myself as blessed to have yourself and rbh as commenters from "the other side".JJS P.Eng.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05029579563816207022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1090883723146476626.post-7345032749907753512008-07-15T05:57:00.000-06:002008-07-15T05:57:00.000-06:00Well, you've swallowed a lot of snake oil there.At...Well, you've swallowed a lot of snake oil there.<BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, science works by fits and starts. Ideas get generated, get questioned, sometimes reign for a while, sometimes flame out. But the heart of the enterprise is the predictive hypothesis and the controlled experiment to collect new data. This is how science progresses, and I certainly hope you are not arguing that we haven't seen scientific progress in recent decades. Science will continue to do that, and journalists like Mazur and O'Dreary, who prefer to misunderstand it, will continue to get it wrong.<BR/><BR/>ID/Creationism hasn't gotten out of the starting blocks on any of that hypothesis/experiment/new data activity, in case you hadn't noticed. It doesn't seem like much of a problem to figure out which side is worth supporting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com