tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8118809376571111689..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Jerry Coyne retiresLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69132749217227491982015-10-05T03:32:38.412-04:002015-10-05T03:32:38.412-04:00"Creationism is seen and insisted by creation..."Creationism is seen and insisted by creationists to be as sciency as anything."<br /><br />Yes, only by them. And nobody else. Nobody.<br />It is most certainly a religious idea, and nothing else.<br /><br />Your term "evolutionism" is also only used by creationists, and almost always as a pejorative.<br /><br />So my conclusion can only be that you completely restrict yourself to reading creationist literature, and ignores the (rather vast) body of scientific literature.Eelco van Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766626420689307304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90647286776607418352015-10-05T01:44:21.356-04:002015-10-05T01:44:21.356-04:00Creationism is seen and insisted by creationists t...Creationism is seen and insisted by creationists to be as sciency as anything.<br />Its not a religious idea or conclusion. it exists as a defence of conclusions by using what is called scientific knowledge and methodology.<br />Evolutionism, by me or anyone I know, is not used as a pejorative. its just a defining word for spectrum of conclusions. Its needed.<br />What is a 'ism? <br />the word is bigger then me and we can use it fairly.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64818433879915299462015-10-04T10:13:45.143-04:002015-10-04T10:13:45.143-04:00I didn't say you coined it.
I is NOT always u...I didn't say you coined it. <br />I is NOT always used (exception: creationists use it as a prejorative).<br /><br />I said it does not exist, as science does not do -isms. This is a science blog, right ? So I did answer your 'why not ?" already. <br /><br />Creationism is not science, but a religious idea, which is why it is OK to use it there, just like Hinduism is also OK. Eelco van Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766626420689307304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87118534794828994332015-10-03T23:32:17.152-04:002015-10-03T23:32:17.152-04:00I didn't coin it. Its always used. Why not? It...I didn't coin it. Its always used. Why not? It makes a quick thought picture of a whole hypothesis affects on thinking about biology.<br />One would need another word. Its used by everybody and so I have the right.<br />Creationism is a ism used and thats fine.<br />We need to consent to definitions to write on the keyboard faster.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53204338448182574822015-10-03T05:57:53.633-04:002015-10-03T05:57:53.633-04:00"evolutionism"
There you go again, Rob..."evolutionism" <br /><br />There you go again, Robert Byers. Another non-existing word - science does not do -isms. <br /><br />Why can't you just use existing word ? Would make any conversation a lot easier.Eelco van Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766626420689307304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21881603298483874532015-10-02T23:23:52.573-04:002015-10-02T23:23:52.573-04:00Off thread but I MEAN evolution is claimed to be t...Off thread but I MEAN evolution is claimed to be the result of scientific investigation and so its conclusions are a theory . A scientific theory.<br />I insist evolutionism is not a bio scientific investigation, the conclusions are not based on bio sci evidence BUT instead based on secondary evidences from non bio subjects.<br />this because its not true and couldn't possibly be based on bio sci evidence.<br />This is a hook i promote.<br />In short they invoke comparative genetics, comparitive anatomy, biogeography, fossils, and lines of reasoning from sexual selection of natural selection evidence in trivial cases.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92091813182548000792015-10-02T04:31:32.840-04:002015-10-02T04:31:32.840-04:00Well, 'evolutionism' does not exist: scien...Well, 'evolutionism' does not exist: science does not do -isms.<br /><br />So how can something that does not exist justify "evolution as a theory of science" (whatever that means ...) ?<br /><br />Hard to make sense out of what you write here anyway ... Eelco van Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766626420689307304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40213454721855945832015-10-02T03:12:59.381-04:002015-10-02T03:12:59.381-04:00There will never be accomplishment in things based...There will never be accomplishment in things based on wrong foundations.<br />Evolutionary biology is a dead end and only IDEAS that are voted on by committees as new truths CAN a evolutionist biologist hope to gain acclaim from.<br />There is no discovery or verification. <br />Just a establishment giving thumbs up.<br />its YEC and ID outlaws that do and will accomplish in figuring out origin things.<br />In the past and now discovery/invention requires a standard of intellectual foundation and then ideas.<br />Only a few ever had a few ideas worthy to be remembered and some more with ideas to be noted in speciality fields.<br /><br />by the way. not seeing evolutionism has no biological scientific evidence behind it to justify evolution as a theory of science is not a good start.<br />Anyways happy retirement .<br /> <br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86817994379011971052015-10-01T16:53:54.964-04:002015-10-01T16:53:54.964-04:00"The one challenge left was discovering new t...<i>"The one challenge left was discovering new things about evolution, which was the really exciting thing about science. I’ve always said that there is nothing comparable to being the first person to see something that nobody’s seen before. Artists must derive some of the same satisfaction when creating new fictional worlds, or finding new ways to see the existing world, but it is only those who do science—and I mean “science” in the broad sense—who are privileged to find and verify new truths about our cosmos."</i><br /><br />Wouldn't be nice if Coyne decided to be the first one to resolve the very, very long outstanding issue of the origins of life? Why choose something, like evolution that to a certain degree was even discovered by creationists and the catholic church? How is that even challenging to begin with?<br /><br />Wouldn't be nice if Coyne announced that he will try to discover new things nobody <b>really didn't discover or replicated so far, like the origins of life and the origins of the famous self reproducing molecule nobody has ever seen so far?</b><br /><br />To me, it is an easy, very easy retirement. Or an escape when the book is not selling well.Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87282440733422561852015-10-01T02:27:03.996-04:002015-10-01T02:27:03.996-04:00Coyne said:
"But finding truly new things—th...Coyne said:<br /><br />"But finding truly new things—things that surprise and delight other scientists—is very rare, for science, like Steve Gould’s fossil record, is largely tedium punctuated by sudden change."<br /><br />A scientist who says something like that has spent way too much time in the confines of a building/lab and nowhere near enough time in the wild, and he obviously hasn't been keeping up on the new discoveries in various fields of science. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20877847952393176632015-09-30T18:17:05.299-04:002015-09-30T18:17:05.299-04:00At the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole,...At the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, they have many photographs of all the famous scientists who have worked there, many with Nobel Prizes. This would be impressive if it weren't for the fact that so many of them got the chance to spend time there <em>after</em> they were famous.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83804767753967856662015-09-30T16:39:27.346-04:002015-09-30T16:39:27.346-04:00I'd rather see 200 rhizarians, but we're n...I'd rather see 200 rhizarians, but we're not getting those soon either. Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16491349703495616942015-09-30T16:29:34.421-04:002015-09-30T16:29:34.421-04:00All in one place to interact,
Give new ideas their...All in one place to interact,<br />Give new ideas their birth.<br />Pleasantries funny, exchanges sunny,<br />Surely we don't need to be hired,<br />We're already together wired.<br />No need for money.<br /><br />Sit around, toast and talk.<br />Or just listen and be mute.<br />Be it WEIT or Sandwalk,<br />This Advanced Study Institute,<br />By green Nature backed,<br />Is glorious planet Earth!<br />Donald Forsdykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18038104286639798795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31286966171556963292015-09-30T14:56:00.610-04:002015-09-30T14:56:00.610-04:00As a hobbyist that quite enjoys browsing genomes i...As a hobbyist that quite enjoys browsing genomes in order to look for interesting features, I concur,Aceofspadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09534611408824723712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6448563265797516882015-09-30T14:45:36.298-04:002015-09-30T14:45:36.298-04:00To be clear: when I'm saying "distantly r...To be clear: when I'm saying "distantly related" I'm talking specifically within birds, and that necessary sample applies specifically to birds. I make no claims about other taxa.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79485354640149359582015-09-30T14:43:56.410-04:002015-09-30T14:43:56.410-04:00Not at all. You can only get decent alignments of ...Not at all. You can only get decent alignments of most sequences from distantly related species when the sample is 100 or more; 200 would be better. Of course you have to pick that 200 judiciously.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51213779566973953132015-09-30T13:30:23.305-04:002015-09-30T13:30:23.305-04:00The 30+ ones that they recently published are not ...The 30+ ones that they recently published are not enough?Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63616452762729127722015-09-30T13:24:28.731-04:002015-09-30T13:24:28.731-04:00Actually, it would be great if someone would churn...Actually, it would be great if someone would churn out a few dozen more avian genomes.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21019565936049405902015-09-30T11:22:57.640-04:002015-09-30T11:22:57.640-04:00Nowadays, the tedium of stasis in everyday science...<i>Nowadays, the tedium of stasis in everyday science isn't the only problem facing young scientists. There's also the tedium of grant writing and the tedium (and stress) of not getting a grant to keep your lab running. Perhaps they should get out of that rat race. We need more thinking in science and not more ChIP assays or RNA-Seq experiments. </i><br /><br />I very much share that sentiment. I often have the feeling of being a prisoner as at this point in my life I can't sit down and read a book on something not directly related to what I do without feeling guilt or worry that this is time not spent on getting ahead in the rat race. <br /><br />It shouldn't be like that...Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25221983912916437952015-09-30T10:33:19.549-04:002015-09-30T10:33:19.549-04:00The quote was "When you are famous it is hard...The quote was "When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards."Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51378014360208651592015-09-30T10:32:42.914-04:002015-09-30T10:32:42.914-04:00I tend to agree with Richard Hamming in that Insti...I tend to agree with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamming" rel="nofollow">Richard Hamming</a> in that Institute for Advanced Studies was kind of a bust.<br /><br />From Hamming's famous talk <a href="http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html" rel="nofollow">You and Your Research</a>:<br /><br /><br />Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.com