tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2743303203592834697..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What Is Evolution?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16804197011654461512013-10-07T21:34:18.899-04:002013-10-07T21:34:18.899-04:00You appear to be misremembering - I never quoted y...You appear to be misremembering - I never quoted your definition.<br /><br />Nor do you get to pick examples in this discussion. Some types of development don't count as being evolutionary. For example, clonal expansion results in no change in gene frequencies. Such cases are pretty irrelevant to this discussion.<br /><br />The point is that some sorts of development are evolutionary - and are well modeled by Darwinism. The most relevant cases are those where gene frequencies iteratively change in a population. This has been demonstrated in the case of clonal selection in the immune system. The effect is part of what is commonly known as "somatic evolution" - which is a widely-recognized phenomenon these days.<br /><br />It should be said that understanding of Darwinian evolution of cells within individuals was a relatively recent development. It wasn't recognized until the 1960s. These days knowledge of it is much more widespread - and the somatic evolution of cells within individuals is often given as a standard example of multi-level selection.<br /><br />It is odd to hear someone denying that reproduction with variation and differential reproductive success in a population of cells over multiple generations *doesn't* count as an instance of Darwinian evolution. It would seem that - according to your own definition - it clearly does.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66054721981765805052013-10-07T15:47:08.551-04:002013-10-07T15:47:08.551-04:00Larry, I didn't accuse you of being a "ne...<i>Larry, I didn't accuse you of being a "neo-Darwinist".</i><br /><br />Tim, the title of your post is, "The neo-Darwinian dogma that individuals do not evolve." Then you quoted my definition,<br /><br /><i>You don't bother with defending your position.</i><br /><br />I defined biological evolution. That definition excludes the examples you use in your post. That's because 99.99% of biologists do not think that the formation of a cancer cell is an example of biological evolution. They also don't think that the development of humans from a zygote to an embryo to a fetus, to an adult is an example of biological evolution. That's the only defense that matters when we're talking about definitions. <br /> Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91797317847421997322013-10-07T06:38:44.154-04:002013-10-07T06:38:44.154-04:00Larry, I didn't accuse you of being a "ne...Larry, I didn't accuse you of being a "neo-Darwinist". Just because a group has a shared belief, it doesn't necessarily imply that everyone with the belief identifies with that group.<br /><br />You don't bother with defending your position. IMO, that's probably because it's mistaken. Darwinian individuals often consist of populations (e.g. of cells), which themselves evolve via Darwinian mechanisms - including natural selection. This has been recognized since Gerald Edelman's work on the immune system in the 1960s.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82135185484973602302013-10-06T09:50:16.283-04:002013-10-06T09:50:16.283-04:00You accuse me of being a "neo-Darwinist"...You accuse me of being a "neo-Darwinist"! Don't you think that's a tiny bit ridiculous?<br /><br />Here's the link to your rather idiosyncratic view of evolution: <a href="http://on-memetics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-neo-darwinian-dogma-that.html" rel="nofollow">The neo-Darwinian dogma that individuals do not evolve</a>. I'll grant you this: it fits in nicely with many of <a href="http://timtyler.org/personal/" rel="nofollow">your other beliefs</a>.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90080556088396947552013-10-06T08:58:45.303-04:002013-10-06T08:58:45.303-04:00Since this misunderstanding appears to be so wides...Since this misunderstanding appears to be so widespread, I wrote an article about it, titled: "The neo-Darwinian dogma that individuals do not evolve".Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9480564881941205312013-10-03T06:04:51.446-04:002013-10-03T06:04:51.446-04:00Re: "Note that biological evolution refers to...Re: "Note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals. In other words, populations evolve but individuals do not. This is a very important point. It distinguishes biological evolution from other forms of evolution in science (e.g., stellar evolution)."<br /><br />The problem is that most things which are classified as "individuals" consist of populations which do, in point of fact, evolve. For example, individual animals consist of populations of cells - which themselves evolve over multiple cell generations. So: evolution can't realistically be excluded from individuals in the way that you propose.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25746702892382515332012-10-17T00:56:31.519-04:002012-10-17T00:56:31.519-04:00twt asks,
"You call yourself a writer, yet yo...twt asks,<br />"You call yourself a writer, yet you don't recognize a metaphor? "<br /><br />Yes, I call myself a writer, because it's my job, and of course I recognize a metaphor, silly.<br /><br />As for you, you call yourself a .......what do you call yourself?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82178564963140129322012-10-16T18:15:02.134-04:002012-10-16T18:15:02.134-04:00andyboerger said:
"Where are the guns? And w...andyboerger said:<br /><br />"Where are the guns? And what does LM mean when he writes, '...if you hope to survive'?<br />Survive what?"<br /><br />You call yourself a writer, yet you don't recognize a metaphor? <br /><br />No wonder you're an IDiot-creationist. You go to great lengths to insure that you're totally ignorant of the behavior and agenda of many of your fellow designer-creator-spirit-god pushers. Even when you're presented with a revealing trail to follow you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and just keep spouting the same stupid, ignorant, and/or dishonest arguments and demands. <br /><br />When someone willfully resists becoming informed, as much as you do, it's no longer a matter where they can justify the 'Nobody told me' excuse. The only person stopping you from being informed is you, and the same thing applies to all the other ignorant IDiot-creationists. <br /><br />You insistently and nitpickingly expect people (actually just the people you disagree with) to be able to back up their words with exact quotes or other concrete evidence, even when they're just making generalized, CLOSE ENOUGH comments, but you don't apply that expectation to yourself or your fellow creationists. You also conveniently ignore exact quotes or other evidence or trails to evidence and you move the goalposts so that you can try to get away with claiming that the quotes or other evidence don't reasonably fulfill your requests (actually insistent, nitpicking demands). <br /><br />Your arguments are based on willful ignorance (or dishonesty, or both), blindly defending your fellow IDiot-creationists, playing games, and pushing your creationist beliefs. You'd be wise to listen and learn a lot more and keep quiet unless and until you actually have a clue, if ever. <br /><br /><br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91841457780063227522012-10-16T17:42:02.887-04:002012-10-16T17:42:02.887-04:00LM asks
'You don't have much experience wi...LM asks<br />'You don't have much experience with trying to drive social change in the face of irrational, bigoted, opposition, do you? '<br /><br />No, I don't. But I have had numerous life experiences, many of them involving conflict, and I try to never use an opponent's tactics to excuse my own (I don't always succeed at this), because I don't want to become that which I am opposed to.<br /><br />That said, although I disagree with your approach, I respect it as something you are committed to. Moreover, I truly appreciate the fact that you have created this site as an open forum, and have allowed me the freedom to air my criticisms without restriction.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39834443044789557342012-10-16T17:01:15.218-04:002012-10-16T17:01:15.218-04:00I have had interesting and entirely civil discussi...<i>I have had interesting and entirely civil discussions with creationists who were genuinely interested in the opinions and arguments of mainstream science. In such cases I feel my time is not completely wasted: gutta cavat lapidem.</i><br /><br />There's a big difference between dealing with individuals one-on-one and fighting the battle in the public sphere. I behave very differently when I'm talking to a creationist in my office or in a pub. <br /><br />So do they.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35128042528728595752012-10-16T16:00:21.107-04:002012-10-16T16:00:21.107-04:00But then, how would you imagine that using terms l...<i>But then, how would you imagine that using terms like IDiot, idiot, stupid, liar, etc. etc. is going to help turn the battle around?</i><br /><br />I don't know, perhaps it isn't. But scientists are busy people. They have classes to teach, student papers to correct, articles to write, lab work to supervise, administrative chores to do, libraries to visit, etc., etc. Most of them don't even think of confronting pseudoscience -- it's unrewarding, frustrating as well as time-consuming. What can you say to a fellow who comes along and demands a one-paraghaph-long "irrefutable proof" that modern biology is right and creationism is wrong? Leisure activities like blogging are done in stolen time, so one is naturally tempted to tell the intruder to sod off at once, especially if his reactions are predictable. Even if you devote an hour of your time and a lot of good faith to provide him with expert info, he won't understand, let alone remember, any of it. Not necessarily because he is stupid but because in typical cases the purpose of his visit is to piss on your turf, not to learn anything.<br /><br />All that said, I have to add that it wouldn't be fair to generalise. I have had interesting and entirely civil discussions with creationists who were genuinely interested in the opinions and arguments of mainstream science. In such cases I feel my time is not completely wasted: gutta cavat lapidem.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2388352715538374512012-10-16T15:32:04.139-04:002012-10-16T15:32:04.139-04:00andyboerger says,
If the ID PR team is as strong ...andyboerger says,<br /><br /><i>If the ID PR team is as strong as you say they are (not disputing this), then what could be easier for them than to turn their followers' attention to this very site and say, 'do you see how vicious the people we are up against are'?</i><br /><br />That's exactly what they do. It means I get all kinds of IDiots reading my posts. Many of them come here to argue about evolution. Some of them even learn something. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the polite, accommodationist, science blogs are ignored. They never get mentioned on any of the creationist web sites.<br /><br />You don't have much experience with trying to drive social change in the face of irrational, bigoted, opposition, do you? <br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84100217694065409292012-10-16T14:49:40.005-04:002012-10-16T14:49:40.005-04:00@ andyboerger
Apologies if I read to much into yo...@ andyboerger<br /><br />Apologies if I read to much into your comment (straw man accusation). That was my actual understanding of your stance, and not a deliberate straw man. <br /><br />So I retract that last sentence about the "poor denigrated ID-supporter-community".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14247180213663419342012-10-16T10:51:06.679-04:002012-10-16T10:51:06.679-04:00Piotr, I think that's an excellent point. I tr...Piotr, I think that's an excellent point. I truly do. In fact, I concede it without reservation.<br /><br />But then, how would you imagine that using terms like IDiot, idiot, stupid, liar, etc. etc. is going to help turn the battle around? If the ID PR team is as strong as you say they are (not disputing this), then what could be easier for them than to turn their followers' attention to this very site and say, 'do you see how vicious the people we are up against are'? Larry talks about 'gunfights', but I would say his type of OTT rhetoric, to say nothing of twt's, is providing those 'guns' with fresh rounds of ammunition.<br /><br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81929400317722588702012-10-16T10:32:47.131-04:002012-10-16T10:32:47.131-04:00I think it can be instructive, and is generally a ...<i>I think it can be instructive, and is generally a good technique for life in general, to turn a situation around.</i><br /><br />A situation is easier to turn round if it's symmetrical. In the science vs. ID debate, it isn't. To begin with, ID itself is one monumental deception, a ploy designed to give creationism a scientific-looking façade and a false respectability. Creationism tries to masquerade as science in order to promote its aggressive agenda, and in particular to introduce "teaching the controversy" into school curricula. Do you wonder why scientists resent such Trojan Horse tactics? The Klinghoffer quote above may look "ridiculous", but remember that Klighoffer is a PROMINENT ideologue of the ID movement, he has lots of FOLLOWERS and his ridiculous propaganda can do a lot of very real harm. In the US, at least, it's a real culture war, and the future of the educational system is at stake.<br /><br />I have no such problems at home. In my country, according to recent surveys, some 50% of the population accept evolution as a fact, 30% believe in some form of creationinsm, and the remaining 20% just don't know. Among the younger generation, however, the proportion is roughly 70%-20%, and that in a country where nearly 90% of the population define themselves as nominally Roman Catholic. Most of the local creationists are too ignorant to have an informed opinion on anything scientific. The ID movement is very weak here, with no supporters in the academia. It's sponsored mainly by the Watchtower Society, and I don't think Catholics are likely to trust an American import associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. That's why I can take it easy, but I understand why in other countries the debate easily turns into a "gunfight".<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69928136514568469042012-10-16T10:28:24.402-04:002012-10-16T10:28:24.402-04:00Anonymous, that's a straw man. Not once did I ...Anonymous, that's a straw man. Not once did I refer to a poor, denigrated ID supporter-community wanting to have a serious dialogue. I referred to ID leaders probably not being so bold as to come right out and say that scientists are 'stupid', a very harsh word( that I note that LM throws around with abandon). My issue has been with unnecessary rhetoric all along, specifically overreaction and justifying ones own behavior because of the other side. Etc.<br /> I asked for evidence of this, and many here have taken the time and trouble to provide it. None of us want to spend the rest of our lives arguing about this. I will accept what you have provided as more or less satisfactory, but continue to have quibbles about it that can only be interpreted from this side of the fence as being overly nitpicky. I'll swallow that.<br /><br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37119156494622451502012-10-16T10:06:59.099-04:002012-10-16T10:06:59.099-04:00@andyboerger
We know that Larry et al. call the ...@andyboerger<br /><br />We know that Larry et al. call the ID camp IDiots. Read the recent post on <a href="http://www.sandwalk.blogspot.de/2012/10/a-dishonest-intelligent-design-proponent.html" rel="nofollow"> Wells </a> to see why. Feel free to dislike the tactic of calling liars liars if you will, but after 150 years of this, the biology community is quite tired of it. <br /><br />You claimed <i>"That creationists go around telling people that 'scientists are stupid' seems a bit of a stretch to me."</i>. We supplied the evidence, from commenters in blogs, and from the big boys. Yes, they do. So your narrative of the poor denigrated ID-supporter-community that just wants to have a serious dialogue has some problems. <br /><br />Clear?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13036586285542440922012-10-16T10:02:07.682-04:002012-10-16T10:02:07.682-04:00Larry, I think I shall look long and hard before I...Larry, I think I shall look long and hard before I find anything more ironic than YOU bringing up the idiom about pots calling kettles black.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85640395551126398522012-10-16T09:55:01.274-04:002012-10-16T09:55:01.274-04:00@andyboerger
I understood what you meant by that ...@andyboerger<br /><br />I understood what you meant by that Einstein quotation but you shouldn't be surprised when someone reads your words quite literally and starts to nitpick at meanings.<br /><br />Pot. kettle, black.<br />Houses, glass, stones.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91249691309253549032012-10-16T08:57:05.755-04:002012-10-16T08:57:05.755-04:00twt, see, this is why I'm almost certain you&#...twt, see, this is why I'm almost certain you're not a scientist. I believe that any scientist would know that I used the Einstein quote to say that Einstein was very reluctant to accept the ideas of quantum physics, even though they were being validated by experimentation.<br /><br />I am not going to fill out my explanation any further. My assumption is that LM, and anyone else but you, who read my comment knew exactly what I was referring to when I wrote that.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7797144022793439712012-10-16T08:53:28.091-04:002012-10-16T08:53:28.091-04:00Piotr, and Anonymous;
I think it can be instructi...Piotr, and Anonymous;<br /><br />I think it can be instructive, and is generally a good technique for life in general, to turn a situation around.<br />Suppose there is a person like Jonny who goes to an ID website and tells them not to use the kinds of quotes that Anonymous and LM have provided (from Wells and Klinghoffer), because it is unbecoming and makes them look unprofessional. <br />The author of the site could reply, "well you DO know, don't you, that evolutionists are calling us idiots, stupid, liars, etc, and encouraging their followers to do the same?"<br />If asked to produce evidence for this, how difficult would it be? Because of this very site, it would be as simple as shooting a fish in a barrel.<br />And yet I have asked for an example of Larry's accusation of 'telling their followers that scientists are stupid' and I get<br />a. hammered for it by an unhinged poster here<br />b. supplied with quotes by you, Piotr, that come from an obnoxious person using the comments section, not an article or something similar that would tend to be written by someone with 'followers';<br />c.LM saying 'There may not be many cases where creationists come right out and say that scientists are "stupid" but that's clearly what they mean. ', and <br />d. Anonymous giving a quote, admittedly a ridiculous quote, while adding 'He does not say "stupid", but I cannot spin "is no longer considered a serious scientist or even a serious public intellectual" in any sort of positive or neutral light.'<br /><br />Am I wrong about any of this? If so, please explain why. If what I have written is basically true, please give a clear defense of why someone using words like idiot, stupid, and liar as if he bought them at a fire sale justifies doing so because 'you don't bring a sharp pencil to a gunfight if you hope to survive''?<br /><br />Where are the guns? And what does LM mean when he writes, '...if you hope to survive'?<br />Survive what?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56439673829166221702012-10-16T06:51:56.882-04:002012-10-16T06:51:56.882-04:00andyboerger said:
"'God does not play di...andyboerger said:<br /><br />"'God does not play dice with the universe'. Does anyone call Einstein 'stupid'?"<br /><br />Don't tell me you're claiming that Einstein believed in "God"? That would be an ignorant claim, especially in light of the contents of a recently auctioned letter written by Einstein. You do watch the news, don't you? And what does your quote from Einstein have to do with being stupid, smart, stubborn, or resisting new ideas?<br /><br />"Given that you excuse your own language on the grounds that you are fighting fire with fire, it follows that it would be quite easy for you to cite an example that says, or very nearly says (as I requested) that 'scientists are stupid'."<br /><br />I see that you haven't looked at any of the sites I listed, and your naiveté act, whether fake or real, is really lame. Since you aren't willing to educate yourself as to what IDiot-creationists say, you're arguing and expecting from the impotent position of willful ignorance. <br /><br />Would you like to see what a very avid IDiot has said just recently? Read this page and pay attention to what joe g says, and especially what he says to olegt (a physicist) about his airplane flight:<br /><br />http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=507d383f70ee0e93;act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=5190<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46256100815202926152012-10-16T01:24:01.546-04:002012-10-16T01:24:01.546-04:00If that quote is typical of the rhetoric you use t...<i>If that quote is typical of the rhetoric you use to justify your own use of 'stupid', 'IDiot', 'idiot', 'liar', etc. , then I would suggest that you are overreacting.</i><br /><br />Andy, while ID supporters may be "polite" by showing proper restraint in some respects, how shall I classify this quotation to do it justice?<br /><br />"Probably most serious working biologists dispense with Darwinian theory in their everyday work. It simply doesn't come up, and insofar as it does, it raises manifest problems in terms of its own scientific credibility..."<br /><br />A lie? A fucking lie? Mendacious bullshit? "Misrepresentative propaganda" would probably be more polite, but it does not quite convey my sentiments on reading it. I hope you know by now that I do my best to respect an honest opponent, but what shall I do when confronted by a despicable liar? I'm pretty sure it wasn't written in good faith, and so this particular individual deserves no respect, as far as I am concerned.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6496666705343528772012-10-16T01:06:23.980-04:002012-10-16T01:06:23.980-04:00Anonymous, thanks for the Klinghoffer quotation. I...Anonymous, thanks for the Klinghoffer quotation. It made my day. I don't like Tuesdays (they are even worse than Mondays) so it's good to begin one with a good laugh.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63898070035570049402012-10-15T19:01:30.728-04:002012-10-15T19:01:30.728-04:00LM asks, "If scientists "misread, fail t...LM asks, "If scientists "misread, fail to grasp, or are in denial about, the implications of their own findings" is that consistent with being intelligent? "<br /><br />Not consistent, but ID proponents would argue that the reason scientists do this is because they are ideologically inclined to reject 'evidence' for design in biology. A person can be very smart, and still very stubborn. Much of science history has included very smart people resisting new ideas. 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Does anyone call Einstein 'stupid'?<br /><br />You use the words stupid, idiot (lower case version as well as your own variation), dishonest, etc., quite profligately. You have given as your reason that you are fighting back. As you write, <br />"You don't bring a sharp pencil to that kind of gunfight if you hope to survive. "<br /><br />Given that you excuse your own language on the grounds that you are fighting fire with fire, it follows that it would be quite easy for you to cite an example that says, or very nearly says (as I requested) that 'scientists are stupid'.<br /><br />The example that you gave from Wells is not an instance of an ID proponent telling his followers that scientists are stupid. In his quote, all he is saying is that he is writing for laymen. In other words, he is writing believing that even people without scientific degrees or backgrounds will be able to understand scientific theories if it is clearly explained to them. If that quote is typical of the rhetoric you use to justify your own use of 'stupid', 'IDiot', 'idiot', 'liar', etc. , then I would suggest that you are overreacting.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.com