tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1432253394280201609..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Jerry Coyne on DarwinismLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80113460834449578812009-02-16T22:42:00.000-05:002009-02-16T22:42:00.000-05:00"Every modern textbook on evolution has a large se..."Every modern textbook on evolution has a large section devoted to random genetic drift as a fundamental mechanism of evolution and yet Coyne doesn't even mention it. He also doesn't mention population genetics. Isn't that strange?"<BR/><BR/>Not really. Coyne is a fool. He's a fool when he trashes Gould, he's a fool when he trashes evo-devo, he's a fool when he makes up idiotic new definitions of creationism in pathetic attacks on belief. He's a buffoon, and you should look at his whole body of work outside fly genetics before you cite him as an atheist authority. He's in the same league as Behe, just on a different team.Stephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56155965545384246322009-02-12T11:06:00.000-05:002009-02-12T11:06:00.000-05:00[O]pposition is based on disbelief in what Ernst M...<I>[O]pposition is based on disbelief in what Ernst Mayr called the 4th element in the theory, namely common descent. Common descent means humans and apes descended from a common ancestor which, as Stephen Jay Gould once observed, is the bete noir of religious nuts.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure this covers the entirety of what creationists (young-Earth and ID variety) find objectionable. I think another very large objection can be found in the terms "creationist" and "intelligent design." It seems to me creationists resent what they see as the usurpation of God's role as Creator/Designer by the natural, unguided forces involved in evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76308251428141308812009-02-12T10:58:00.000-05:002009-02-12T10:58:00.000-05:00Four syllables or three? Is "-ism" one syllable or...<I>Four syllables or three? Is "-ism" one syllable or two?</I><BR/><BR/>When you are next in southeastern Pennsylvania I will buy you the beer of your choice if you can find a dictionary entry anywhere that shows "-ism" (or "-nism") as one syllable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55116912128406920122009-02-12T07:53:00.000-05:002009-02-12T07:53:00.000-05:00Re Tracy P. HamiltonWhat most religious opponents ...Re Tracy P. Hamilton<BR/><BR/>What most religious opponents of evolution mean by the term "Darwinism" is common descent. Thus, for instance, the Dishonesty Institutes' Casey Luskin gets his panties in a twist every time a transitional fossil is discovered or genetic evidence such as the merger of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 in human chromosome 2 is uncovered. The issue of natural selection vs genetic drift is of no relevance to them; in fact, it is likely that most of them don't know the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10021220916687463252009-02-11T14:04:00.000-05:002009-02-11T14:04:00.000-05:00Would creationism and its country cousin, intellig...<I>Would creationism and its country cousin, intelligent design</I><BR/><BR/>This is an odd use of the term "country cousin."<BR/><BR/><I>“Darwinism” is a compact, four-syllable term</I><BR/><BR/>Four syllables or three? Is "-ism" one syllable or two?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91505385229592279672009-02-11T14:01:00.000-05:002009-02-11T14:01:00.000-05:00SLC said:"Prof. Morans' obsession with the relativ...SLC said:"Prof. Morans' obsession with the relative importance of genetic drift vs natural selection has no relevance to the opposition of religious whackjobs to the theory of evolution."<BR/><BR/>Actually it is relevant, since many anti-evolution arguments are based on equivocation on the meaning of Darwinism. The "anti-Darwinism" petition touted by the Discovery Institute would be something Larry would sign, if he knew it wouldn't be misconstrued as a statement against evolution.TheChemistryOfBeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04228308036995626376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60293760479447815382009-02-11T12:12:00.000-05:002009-02-11T12:12:00.000-05:00Prof. Morans' obsession with the relative importan...Prof. Morans' obsession with the relative importance of genetic drift vs natural selection has no relevance to the opposition of religious whackjobs to the theory of evolution. These folks don't have the foggiest notion of the difference and they could care less. Their opposition is based on disbelief in what Ernst Mayr called the 4th element in the theory, namely common descent. Common descent means humans and apes descended from a common ancestor which, as Stephen Jay Gould once observed, is the bete noir of religious nuts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41253480442907469162009-02-11T11:20:00.000-05:002009-02-11T11:20:00.000-05:00I agree - "Darwinism" is a terrible way to refer t...I agree - "Darwinism" is a terrible way to refer to a scientific theory. Justifying it based on syllabyl counts is beyond terrible. Science is supposed to be about accuracy, not catch-words and jingoism.<BR/><BR/>However, here in the US at least, I don't think the problem is really that few people are aware of genetic drift. That is, I'm sure few people <I>are</I> aware of genetic drift, but I don't think that's the main problem. If most people here accepted evolution, or even if most people accepted that scientists accept evolution as a strongly supported theory, not as an ideology, I'd be thrilled.<BR/><BR/>Eliminating the use of <I>Darwinism</I> and replacing it with <I>evolutionary theory</I> isn't going to change anyone's awareness of genetic drift. It may do at least a little to reduce people's view of evolution as an ideology.<BR/><BR/>Hey, I can hope, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42873239969830715602009-02-11T11:12:00.000-05:002009-02-11T11:12:00.000-05:00I seem to remember one of Gould's essays arguing t...I seem to remember one of Gould's essays arguing that 'Darwinism' is a good term for summarizing evolution as Darwin formulated it (e.g., adaptationism); and thus should be used as such. However, in referring to all of evolutionary theory, one should choose a different, all-encompassing term.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153076425887492166noreply@blogger.com