tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5528558395166899462..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks: Definition of Evolution According to Kevin PadianLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75185162021669071042013-10-18T19:36:09.681-04:002013-10-18T19:36:09.681-04:00I just meant physical change - but you should be m...I just meant physical change - but you should be made aware that inorganic physical systems evolve along Darwinian lines too. Perhaps review my articles "positional inheritance", "velocity inheritance" and "Darwinian physics", "universal selection" and "observation of the observable" if you are interested in how Darwinism applies to physics.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35753793991017511672013-10-18T07:37:12.760-04:002013-10-18T07:37:12.760-04:00Tim: Saying that cultural evolution is not part of...Tim: <i>Saying that cultural evolution is not part of biological evolution is like saying that biological evolution is not part of physical evolution.</i><br /><br />Actually, there are close analogies between (some aspects of) "cultural evolution" and "biological evolution", since the cultural transmission of knowledge, skills, language constituents, etc. is a process involving faithful but not-quite-error-proof copying, like biological replication. Therefore, the use of the word "evolution" with reference to cultural phenomena is more than a fanciful metaphor, and insights borrowed from biology are valuable e.g. in my own area of research, historical linguistics (not that biological models can be straightforwardly imported without taking into account the differences between the two domains). But I have no idea what you mean by "physical evolution", so the final part of the sentence makes no sense to me.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27229741159248162972013-10-18T06:02:00.442-04:002013-10-18T06:02:00.442-04:00Pedro, cultural evolution is closely involved with...Pedro, cultural evolution is closely involved with the definition of evolution given in textbooks. Check the definition in Ridley's 'Evolution' textbook. It gives a definition of evolution and then says: oh yes, but cultural changes and changes during development don't count. That's a daft and ugly way of defining a scientific subject area. There's now a large literature on cultural and somatic evolution. This textbook is just wrong.<br /><br />Piotr, only partly. Physics, chemistry and biology are distinct academic subjects, but they are *also* partly-overlapping domains, such that: (physics (chemistry (biology))). Biology and culture can have their own academic departments, while it nonetheless remains true that (physics (chemistry (biology (culture)))). Saying that cultural evolution is not part of biological evolution is like saying that biological evolution is not part of physical evolution. Both are equally dubious statements.<br /><br />Steve, that's rather different. Biology doesn't study stars much. Stars are not alive. Biology is the study of living systems. That's not to say that there's no link - just the rather tenuous one of providing raw materials.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47870035513333497992013-10-17T10:11:58.907-04:002013-10-17T10:11:58.907-04:00Tim Tyler Stars are not part of biology.
As far ...Tim Tyler <i>Stars are not part of biology. </i><br /><br />As far as I know all the elements other than hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium, which were produced during the big bang nucleosynthesis, are the result of fusion processes in stars.<br /><br />This would include all of the other elements that are utilized in biological processes.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89696694477851185392013-10-17T09:53:20.419-04:002013-10-17T09:53:20.419-04:00Without life, there's no culture.
Absolutely....<i>Without life, there's no culture.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. Also, without chemistry, there's no life; without physics, there's no chemistry: ergo, culture is part of physics. What's wrong with that? Maybe the fact that physics, chemistry, biology, the social sciences and other disciplines are not objectively existing domains of the universe but fields of study defined by us humans for our own convenience, each with its own field of interest.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68580891943573338682013-10-17T09:24:33.873-04:002013-10-17T09:24:33.873-04:00""Larry, that's simply a fundamental...""Larry, that's simply a fundamental fallacy. Culture is part of biology - since biology is the study of life. So cultural evolution is part of biological evolution. Stars are not part of biology. However, culture is part of living systems. Without life, there's no culture.<br /><br />Claiming that cultural evolution is not part of biological evolution goes against all the literature on the topic. See, for instance the article "Culture is Part of Human Biology" by Boyd and Richerson. It is just a categorization mistake.""<br /><br /><br />There's no fallacy here. Pretty much everyone on this forum is familiar with Sociobiology, inlcuding it's offshoot Gene-Culture Co-Evolution. It also happens to be completely irrelevant for the issue we are discussing at the moment.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40959095035932446472013-10-17T05:39:54.402-04:002013-10-17T05:39:54.402-04:00Larry, that's simply a fundamental fallacy. Cu...Larry, that's simply a fundamental fallacy. Culture is part of biology - since biology is the study of life. So cultural evolution is part of biological evolution. Stars are not part of biology. However, culture is part of living systems. Without life, there's no culture.<br /><br />Claiming that cultural evolution is not part of biological evolution goes against all the literature on the topic. See, for instance the article "Culture is Part of Human Biology" by Boyd and Richerson. It is just a categorization mistake.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79317755256740967322013-10-16T07:00:11.441-04:002013-10-16T07:00:11.441-04:00"This part of science stinks so bad, that my ... "This part of science stinks so bad, that my brother in law, very well know scientist... "<br /><br />lol.<br /><br /><br />"He flies in on his private jet... "<br /><br />lol<br /><br />"Then we have so called macro. I don't buy it for many, many, many reasons but one of them is the Darwin's Finches. I have gone to the isles personally many times..."<br /><br />lol<br /><br />You're full of shit.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76548206700714611152013-10-16T06:39:23.634-04:002013-10-16T06:39:23.634-04:00I totally agree with Moran. Intelligent Design thr...I totally agree with Moran. Intelligent Design thrives precisely due to ignorance of mechanisms. The way you seem to be teaching evolution amounts to stamp collecting. You show all the evidence from transitional fossils, compared anatomy, etc, but unless you show (based on population genetics and molecular evolution) HOW that occurs then one of your students could just say that that God willed it or that evolution is Lamarkian. <br /><br />There was a period after Darwinism was introduced called "The Eclypse of Darwinism". The reason was that the evidence for evoultion's ocrrurence was there (as Darwin presented it) but there were no mechanisms to explain it. Filling the textbooks with pretty pictures of comparisons of sekeletons and molecules by itself explains nothing. Without population genetics and molecular evolution to inform HOW macroevolution occurs we are back at square one, the only difference being that the data we have is bigger and more refined.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35990475921172238432013-10-15T21:30:40.527-04:002013-10-15T21:30:40.527-04:00We're talking about biological evolution. This...We're talking about biological evolution. This is clear from the context. We are not talking about stellar evolution or any other kind of evolution, including cultural evolution. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87430551282529350592013-10-15T20:25:51.345-04:002013-10-15T20:25:51.345-04:00If evolution is defined to be confined to changes ...If evolution is defined to be confined to changes in genes, then the concept of a "gene" had better cover all kinds of cultural and environmental heritable variation - or the definition will be in conflict with modern theories of cultural and environmental evolution.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50369990816977365242013-10-15T20:03:16.185-04:002013-10-15T20:03:16.185-04:00Quest,
Three posts later and you still haven'...Quest,<br /><br />Three posts later and you still haven't answered my question. Why do you want your children to be ignorant of the central organizing principle of biology?<br /><br />I suspect that your first paragraph is talking about the origin of life. Is that correct? In what way is our lack of understanding of how life began a concern for you?<br /><br />I find it very difficult to believe that you have gone to the Galapagos many times and have seen the changes in finch beaks, which are the sort of thing you can only really measure with a bird in hand. Do you have a tendency to make up stories? The rest of the paragraph is gibberish. We know that macroevolution happens not because of finch beaks but because we have a clear phylogenetic tree that relates many quite different species, including, incidentally, all of Darwin's finches and their Caribbean and South American relatives. Do you think that each species of finch was created in place, separately, in the islands? Now that's silly. And by the way, evolution has nothing to do with superhumans; you've been reading too many old comic books.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49963963988590026602013-10-15T19:55:47.461-04:002013-10-15T19:55:47.461-04:00All the wild statements Quest has made recently in...All the wild statements Quest has made recently increase my (previously-mentioned) suspicion that he is the unfortunate victim of some brain malfunction, such as being bi-polar. I am not being sarcastic or intending to be mean. I have known one such person personally and heard of two others, and all three became fixated on creationism (as a consequence of biblical literalism) in their late 20's or early 30's once their syndrome occurred. There is not much point in arguing with such people and no point at all in becoming angry with them.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46465351228366671952013-10-15T19:26:31.114-04:002013-10-15T19:26:31.114-04:00John, What evolution? You have to be precise. 90-9...John, What evolution? You have to be precise. 90-95% of stuff you guys are talking about here is evolution nobody in the right frame of mind questions. Even some very prominent YEC have recently accepted that "natural selection" is a real deal or something. Well, that is great that after 150 years they acknowledge something that people like Darwin saw and pretty much proven with their own eyes and some experiments. That is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about science that reaches beyond Darwin's imagination; the science leading to the point where "evolution" can even begin. This part of science stinks so bad, that my brother in law, very well know scientist doesn't even mention it during thanksgiving dinner. He flies in on his private jet to eat turkey with us, but he doesn't want to talk about that. <br /><br />Then we have so called macro. I don't buy it for many, many, many reasons but one of them is the Darwin's Finches. I have gone to the isles personally many times. I have seen the changes of the beak with my own eyes. There is no doubt in my mind that the beak size and shape does change within one generation. However, does it mean that finches will become other species later on? No. Next generation or two return to being small beak finches. No macro or any other evolution takes place. No way. My wife and I have big noses. I mean pretty big. My sons have small ones. Would they turn into superhuman or would their offspring? No frickin way. I predict that NegEntroc would rather turn into a creationist than this to take place ;lol<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16778811012850102212013-10-15T18:39:03.141-04:002013-10-15T18:39:03.141-04:00No, I haven't. And I'm not going to take y...No, I haven't. And I'm not going to take your word that yours can. I have no doubt they could argue rings around you, but that isn't much of a standard. Are they less ignorant of evolution than you are? <br /><br />And I will note that you still have not answered my question. Why do you want your children to be ignorant of the central organizing principle of biology?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75884314516375616342013-10-15T18:08:02.096-04:002013-10-15T18:08:02.096-04:00John, Have you ever seen or talked to a 10 year ol...John, Have you ever seen or talked to a 10 year old kid that can defend his beliefs really well? I mean in biology? I have never, ever stopped them (my boys) from investigating anything they wanted; they challenged me many, many times. They still do. I don't like it sometimes but.... I do too.... It makes crappy science look really bad... coz children expose it....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35231774015776299422013-10-15T17:10:33.102-04:002013-10-15T17:10:33.102-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-277202128710633692013-10-15T17:06:12.339-04:002013-10-15T17:06:12.339-04:00Quest,
You seem to believe that opinions are a ma...Quest,<br /><br />You seem to believe that opinions are a matter of choosing sides. Nope. Larry and I disagree about various things, but most of them are more trivial than you seem to think. Most disagreements among the scientists you have mentioned above are more trivial than you seem to think, and at any rate are on a few points that are unlikely to turn up in a grade school or high school class. We all agree that natural selection and drift are both major mechanisms of evolution. The disagreement between Larry and some others is on the relative emphasis we should give to them. My argument with him is even less interesting and concerns the adequacy of a short definition. Any short definition. Your little challenge to the biology teachers was pointless.<br /><br />Anyway, why am I questioning you? Because your decision to keep your children ignorant of the central organizing principle of biology, for very silly expressed reasons, is pernicious. I answered your question. Now will you answer mine? Why do you want your children to be ignorant of the central organizing principle of biology?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85974992018461350402013-10-15T17:05:03.205-04:002013-10-15T17:05:03.205-04:00I don't know why John questions you Quest, but...I don't know why John questions you Quest, but, whether we agree or disagree with Larry on one or two or one million issues does not change the fact that you are an ignorant fool. One who takes pride in keeping his/her children in abject ignorance. You want your kids to be as scientifically illiterate as yourself. Hopefully they did not get their intelligence from you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44339258817293846932013-10-15T16:10:20.900-04:002013-10-15T16:10:20.900-04:00John, You are one of the very few who questions La...John, You are one of the very few who questions Larry's authority on evo/mechs. Why are you questioning me? Why?<br /><br />Oberewski doesn't even know what it is about and he still objects... I love this blog....<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89646816370852399472013-10-15T15:26:25.817-04:002013-10-15T15:26:25.817-04:00The only thing I find more disturbing than the fac...The only thing I find more disturbing than the fact that Quest is allowed access to an Internet connection is that he is responsible for the upbringing of impressionable children.<br /><br />I take comfort in the fact that like every thing else Quest has posted, this is most likely unadulterated bullshit.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62156966170393748602013-10-15T15:15:14.899-04:002013-10-15T15:15:14.899-04:00Can you predict what happened?
No.<i>Can you predict what happened?</i><br /><br />No.AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23969884405269057712013-10-15T14:25:06.039-04:002013-10-15T14:25:06.039-04:00So you want your kids to be ignorant of the main o...So you want your kids to be ignorant of the main organizing principle of biology? Why is that, exactly?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38605915486093739422013-10-15T13:25:18.807-04:002013-10-15T13:25:18.807-04:00You do agree, don't you, that anyone who can&#...<i>You do agree, don't you, that anyone who can't handle a binomial expansions or a simple matrix should never be given a high school graduation diploma?</i><br /><br />I hope you don't feel the same about writers of typo-riddled blog comments (i.e. me). <br /><br />Whether I think they should receive a diploma or not is beside the point. Frankly, many students make it through without mastering these elementary skills, or worse only learn them to the extent that they can marginally pass a standardized test that treats education as an apparently arbitrary set of abstract drills with no obvious connection to the "real world." <br /><br />The question is, do we simply write off the segment of the population without a solid working knowledge of population genetics as hopeless and insufficiently intellectual to participate in a broader dialogue about our place in the natural world? <br /><br />To be clear I'm not talking about "dumbing down" science at the college or high school level. Rather I am advocating pluralism. There are those who could not care less about fossil whales, but are fascinated by human health or crop science or protein folding. I know gifted geneticists that think <i>Dimetrodon</i> is a dinosaur. It's OK. I think we should expose everyone to as broad and rigorous a biological education as possible. But also I think we should be careful about being overly rigid or fundamentalist in pursuit of pedagogical purity.<br /><br />I would be interested to compare textbook treatment of macroevolution across decades in a systematic way. I do think that the treatment of has improved, thanks in part to recent fossil discoveries that illuminate some key transitions. Anecdotally, I can tell you that my high-school education (in the 90s) was relatively heavy on genetics and cell biology and mighty thin on macroevolution. There was some ridiculing of Lamarckian giraffes and, yes, some very misleading and dated treatment of horses that could have come straight from Cope (<i>Eohippus</i> to <i>Equus</i> in four easy steps).<br />But I turned out OK anyway. Maybe. My matrix and binomial algebra skills are mighty rusty. Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10293693723899837239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25811212769581142122013-10-15T13:21:44.658-04:002013-10-15T13:21:44.658-04:00Nothing makes me laugh out loud more than evolutio...Nothing makes me laugh out loud more than evolutionary scientists who claim to be the experts on evolution and who can't agree on the fundamental principles of evolution; such as its mechanism (s). <br /><br />I have not been following this blog for a long time, but almost ever week Larry complains about another "topnotch scientist" who either doesn't understand evolution or its mechanism (s). <br /><br />Thanks to their mutual disagreement, especially among such big-shots like Dawkins, Coyne, Moran, and the rest, my kids don't have to attend biology classes anymore, when evolution is being taught. <br /><br />I met with the principal and most of the biology teachers at my sons' school and asked them to write down on a piece of paper what the definition of evolution and its mechanism (s) were. Can you predict what happened? It was a lot of fun. Anyway, since my kids do well at the rest of biology, the teachers let them skip most of the classes, so that they don't have to deal with embarrassing questions from my sons. Well, it worked out well lol.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com